Liberty hails Westminster change of heart on soup run byelaw
Campaign group Liberty has hailed Westminster City Council’s decision to drop plans for a byelaw banning charitable soup runs as “a victory for common sense”.
The local authority put forward the byelaw proposals earlier this year, claiming that charitable food distribution was impeding its efforts to eradicate rough sleeping by enabling homeless people to sleep on the streets rather than seeking hostel accommodation.
However, the council said this week that – following discussions with Liberty and other organisations – it would no longer press ahead with the plans. The byelaw would have covered an area around Westminster Cathedral Piazza.
Cllr Daniel Astaire, cabinet member for adult services and health, said: "Our entire approach to homelessness and rough sleeping is about improving people’s lives and we believe that feeding people on the streets is not a civilised way to help people in the 21st century.
“The needs of rough sleepers can be best met under an umbrella of support services across Westminster that can best be found indoors and off the streets.”
Cllr Astaire said that whilst there was a difference of opinion on some points, “everyone involved agreed that the situation on the Piazza was unacceptable and the number of soup runs has since decreased significantly in this area.”
He added: "Through collaborating with all parties involved, the needs of rough sleepers and the community have been met without the need at this time to pursue the legislative route of a byelaw.”
Sabina Frediani, campaigns co-ordinator for Liberty, said: “Credit to Westminster Council for responding to public concern in such a positive way and dropping such a harsh and ill-judged proposal. The byelaw would have criminalised acts of charity at a time of recession and at best, merely shunted homeless people on to a different part of the capital.
“Thankfully following positive discussion and negotiation with homelessness charities, the council has recognised that it is not its place to tell us that we cannot give our food to the needy.”
As part of its campaign against the byelaw, Liberty obtained a written legal opinion from James Goudie QC and Deok Joo Rhee of 11 KBW.
The opinion argued that Westminster’s plans were unlawful on a number of grounds, including that the byelaw was:
- ambiguous and failed to provide sufficient clarity as to the scope of the conduct which it criminalised;
- was over-broad and draconian, criminalising lawful and benign conduct which, on any view, was entirely unconnected with any legitimate aim which Westminster claimed to pursue; and
- was (at best) only tenuously connected to the object pursued and, assessed objectively, was: (a) likely to be less effective in achieving Westminster’s stated aim than a number of other alternative measures, and (b) was more intrusive as regards fundamental rights than those alternatives.
Should Westminster seek to revive its byelaw plan, it will have to launch a fresh consultation.
